“But as the inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the way is the same, but the order is inverted.“
Thank you for drawing this seminal text to my attention. I have not yet read Leviathan, and had ignorantly dismissed Hobbes as too pessimistic for my taste. Even were this to be the case, his work would merit consideration.
I have always grappled with the confounding contradiction that the seat of St Peter should be held in legacy by his executioners.
That was the last chapter of the book . . . here is another . . .
OF DEMONOLOGY AND OTHER RELICS OF THE RELIGION OF THE GENTILES...
>
[10] Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing": not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing; but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honour is that which is in the Scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God. For God being King of the Jews, and His lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the high priest, if the people had been permitted to worship and pray to images (which are representations of their own fancies), they had had no further dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude; nor on His prime ministers, Moses and the high priests; but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter eversion of the Commonwealth, and their own destruction for want of union. And therefore the first law of God was: they should not take for gods, alienos deos, that is, the gods of other nations, but that only true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them laws and directions for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies. And the second was that they should not make to themselves any image to worship, of their own invention. For it is the same deposing of a king to submit to another king, whether he be set up by a neighbour nation or by ourselves.
>
[11] The places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of images to worship them, or to set them up at all in the places where God is worshipped, are, first, two examples; one of the cherubim over the Ark of God; the other of the brazen serpent: secondly, some texts whereby we are commanded to worship certain creatures for their relation to God; as to worship His footstool: and lastly, some other texts, by which is authorized a religious honouring of holy things. But before I examine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I must first explain what is to be understood by worshipping, and what by images and idols.
>
[12] I have already shown, in the twentieth Chapter of this discourse, that to honour is to value highly the power of any person, and that such value is measured by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing to be compared with God in power, we honour Him not, but dishonour Him, by any value less than infinite. And thus honour is properly of its own nature secret, and internal in the heart. But the inward thoughts of men, which appear outwardly in their words and actions, are the signs of our honouring, and these go by the name of worship; in Latin, cultus. Therefore, to pray to, to swear by, to obey, to be diligent and officious in serving; in sum, all words and actions that betoken fear to offend, or desire to please, is worship, whether those words and actions be sincere or feigned: and because they appear as signs of honouring are ordinarily also called honour.
>
[13] The worship we exhibit to those we esteem to be but men, as to kings and men in authority, is civil worship: but the worship we exhibit to that which we think to be God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies, gestures, or other actions be, is divine worship. To fall prostrate before a king, in him that thinks him but a man, is but civil worship: and he that but putteth off his hat in the church, for this cause, that he thinketh it the house of God, worshippeth with divine worship. They that seek the distinction of divine and civil worship, not in the intention of the worshipper, but in the words douleia and latreia, deceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of servants: that sort which is of those that are absolutely in the power of their masters, as slaves taken in war, and their issue, whose bodies are not in their own power (their lives depending on the will of their masters, in such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience), and that are bought and sold as beasts, were called Douloi, that is properly, slaves, and their service, Douleia; the other, which is of those that serve for hire, or in hope of benefit from their masters voluntarily, are called Thetes, that is, domestic servants; to whose service the masters have no further right than is contained in the covenants made betwixt them. These two kinds of servants have thus much common to them both, that their labour is appointed them by another: and the word Latris is the general name of both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether as a slave or a voluntary servant. So that latreia signifieth generally all service; but douleia the service of bondmen only, and the condition of slavery: and both are used in Scripture, to signify our service of God, promiscuously. Douleia, because we are God's slaves; latreia, because we serve Him: and in all kinds of service is contained, not only obedience, but also worship; that is, such actions, gestures, and words as signify honour.
>
[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
>
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
>
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of diverse creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras, and other monsters never seen: so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay, or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some fantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved, moulded, or molten in matter, there is a similitude of the one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.
Thank you. I will read the entirety of the text. As you may know, in the south of France iconoclasts defaced cathedral facades, decapitating the saints.
Chapter xxxviii. Of the Signification in Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption
[12] And first for the tormenters, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the enemy, or Satan; the Accuser, or Diabolus; the Destroyer, or Abaddon. Which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names use to do, but only an office or quality; and are therefore appellatives; which ought not to have been left untranslated, as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles, because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons; and men are more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God; therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former chapter I have shown by Scripture it seems to be), the enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God’s kingdom was in Palestine; and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Oui . . . Nous socialistes nationaux est venu à libéré Paris, nous ne l'avons pas détruit.
Aucun pays ne mène sa propre course dans cette invasion parce qu'il s'agit d'un programme politique dirigé par l'ONU et poussé en avant par les Juifs et leurs marionnettes (les politiciens). La plupart des gens ne sauront tout simplement pas ou ne comprendront pas qu'il s'agit d'un programme politique. Cependant, certains parviennent à comprendre que les politiciens travaillent délibérément à importer des musulmans et à remplacer les gens, mais c'est à peu près tout, ils sont comme un ordinateur qui ne peut pas fonctionner parce que le programme ne le permet pas... Les banquiers juifs inondent l'Europe de musulmans et l'Amérique de déchets du tiers-monde.
Les gens demandent parfois pourquoi la gauche européenne s'entend si bien avec les musulmans. Pourquoi un mouvement qui a souvent été ouvertement anti-religieux prend-il le parti d'une religiosité farouche qui semble s'opposer à presque tout ce que la gauche a jamais prétendu représenter? Une partie de l'explication est que l'islam et le marxisme ont une racine idéologique commune: le judaïsme.
Interesting stuff. Have you since heard that many of these things here criticised are papist innovations, and were not and are not part of worship or teaching in the true Church of Christ - the Orthodox Catholic Church, from which the papists, the old Patriarchate of Rome, fell away in 1054?
Jordan Peterson has taken to Twitter in his criticism of the validity of Pope Francis’ Christianity . . . Never mind that Peterson is supposedly an atheist . . . and that the Popes all wear a yarmulke and all pay homage to the Hebrew god Satan at the Wailing Wall in their obeisance to the Jews . . . Peterson believes that the American Israeli Political Action Committee is the official religion of the United States government . . . which really isn’t that far off the mark . . . but, Peterson is also a Canadian and doesn’t have a kippa like the Pope does, how does he get to claim he has rabbinical authority here? Maybe it’s because he’s over at the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
The Rubin Report is supposedly ‘an opponent of identity politics’, although Rubin ‘identifies with the libertardian/classical liberal wing of contemporary right-of-center political thought’. Rubin is really a Jewish homosexual activist married to another man and adopted a child, that’s his real identity . . . a ‘Jewish Pioneer of Sexual Degeneracy.’
“But as the inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the way is the same, but the order is inverted.“
Thank you for drawing this seminal text to my attention. I have not yet read Leviathan, and had ignorantly dismissed Hobbes as too pessimistic for my taste. Even were this to be the case, his work would merit consideration.
I have always grappled with the confounding contradiction that the seat of St Peter should be held in legacy by his executioners.
That was the last chapter of the book . . . here is another . . .
OF DEMONOLOGY AND OTHER RELICS OF THE RELIGION OF THE GENTILES...
>
[10] Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing": not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing; but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honour is that which is in the Scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God. For God being King of the Jews, and His lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the high priest, if the people had been permitted to worship and pray to images (which are representations of their own fancies), they had had no further dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude; nor on His prime ministers, Moses and the high priests; but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter eversion of the Commonwealth, and their own destruction for want of union. And therefore the first law of God was: they should not take for gods, alienos deos, that is, the gods of other nations, but that only true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them laws and directions for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies. And the second was that they should not make to themselves any image to worship, of their own invention. For it is the same deposing of a king to submit to another king, whether he be set up by a neighbour nation or by ourselves.
>
[11] The places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of images to worship them, or to set them up at all in the places where God is worshipped, are, first, two examples; one of the cherubim over the Ark of God; the other of the brazen serpent: secondly, some texts whereby we are commanded to worship certain creatures for their relation to God; as to worship His footstool: and lastly, some other texts, by which is authorized a religious honouring of holy things. But before I examine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I must first explain what is to be understood by worshipping, and what by images and idols.
>
[12] I have already shown, in the twentieth Chapter of this discourse, that to honour is to value highly the power of any person, and that such value is measured by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing to be compared with God in power, we honour Him not, but dishonour Him, by any value less than infinite. And thus honour is properly of its own nature secret, and internal in the heart. But the inward thoughts of men, which appear outwardly in their words and actions, are the signs of our honouring, and these go by the name of worship; in Latin, cultus. Therefore, to pray to, to swear by, to obey, to be diligent and officious in serving; in sum, all words and actions that betoken fear to offend, or desire to please, is worship, whether those words and actions be sincere or feigned: and because they appear as signs of honouring are ordinarily also called honour.
>
[13] The worship we exhibit to those we esteem to be but men, as to kings and men in authority, is civil worship: but the worship we exhibit to that which we think to be God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies, gestures, or other actions be, is divine worship. To fall prostrate before a king, in him that thinks him but a man, is but civil worship: and he that but putteth off his hat in the church, for this cause, that he thinketh it the house of God, worshippeth with divine worship. They that seek the distinction of divine and civil worship, not in the intention of the worshipper, but in the words douleia and latreia, deceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of servants: that sort which is of those that are absolutely in the power of their masters, as slaves taken in war, and their issue, whose bodies are not in their own power (their lives depending on the will of their masters, in such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience), and that are bought and sold as beasts, were called Douloi, that is properly, slaves, and their service, Douleia; the other, which is of those that serve for hire, or in hope of benefit from their masters voluntarily, are called Thetes, that is, domestic servants; to whose service the masters have no further right than is contained in the covenants made betwixt them. These two kinds of servants have thus much common to them both, that their labour is appointed them by another: and the word Latris is the general name of both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether as a slave or a voluntary servant. So that latreia signifieth generally all service; but douleia the service of bondmen only, and the condition of slavery: and both are used in Scripture, to signify our service of God, promiscuously. Douleia, because we are God's slaves; latreia, because we serve Him: and in all kinds of service is contained, not only obedience, but also worship; that is, such actions, gestures, and words as signify honour.
>
[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
>
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
>
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of diverse creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras, and other monsters never seen: so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay, or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some fantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved, moulded, or molten in matter, there is a similitude of the one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.
>
https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf
Thank you. I will read the entirety of the text. As you may know, in the south of France iconoclasts defaced cathedral facades, decapitating the saints.
Leviathan: Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth
Chapter xxxviii. Of the Signification in Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption
[12] And first for the tormenters, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the enemy, or Satan; the Accuser, or Diabolus; the Destroyer, or Abaddon. Which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names use to do, but only an office or quality; and are therefore appellatives; which ought not to have been left untranslated, as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles, because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons; and men are more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God; therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former chapter I have shown by Scripture it seems to be), the enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God’s kingdom was in Palestine; and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Oui . . . Nous socialistes nationaux est venu à libéré Paris, nous ne l'avons pas détruit.
Aucun pays ne mène sa propre course dans cette invasion parce qu'il s'agit d'un programme politique dirigé par l'ONU et poussé en avant par les Juifs et leurs marionnettes (les politiciens). La plupart des gens ne sauront tout simplement pas ou ne comprendront pas qu'il s'agit d'un programme politique. Cependant, certains parviennent à comprendre que les politiciens travaillent délibérément à importer des musulmans et à remplacer les gens, mais c'est à peu près tout, ils sont comme un ordinateur qui ne peut pas fonctionner parce que le programme ne le permet pas... Les banquiers juifs inondent l'Europe de musulmans et l'Amérique de déchets du tiers-monde.
Les gens demandent parfois pourquoi la gauche européenne s'entend si bien avec les musulmans. Pourquoi un mouvement qui a souvent été ouvertement anti-religieux prend-il le parti d'une religiosité farouche qui semble s'opposer à presque tout ce que la gauche a jamais prétendu représenter? Une partie de l'explication est que l'islam et le marxisme ont une racine idéologique commune: le judaïsme.
Interesting stuff. Have you since heard that many of these things here criticised are papist innovations, and were not and are not part of worship or teaching in the true Church of Christ - the Orthodox Catholic Church, from which the papists, the old Patriarchate of Rome, fell away in 1054?
Jordan Peterson has taken to Twitter in his criticism of the validity of Pope Francis’ Christianity . . . Never mind that Peterson is supposedly an atheist . . . and that the Popes all wear a yarmulke and all pay homage to the Hebrew god Satan at the Wailing Wall in their obeisance to the Jews . . . Peterson believes that the American Israeli Political Action Committee is the official religion of the United States government . . . which really isn’t that far off the mark . . . but, Peterson is also a Canadian and doesn’t have a kippa like the Pope does, how does he get to claim he has rabbinical authority here? Maybe it’s because he’s over at the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
The Rubin Report is supposedly ‘an opponent of identity politics’, although Rubin ‘identifies with the libertardian/classical liberal wing of contemporary right-of-center political thought’. Rubin is really a Jewish homosexual activist married to another man and adopted a child, that’s his real identity . . . a ‘Jewish Pioneer of Sexual Degeneracy.’
Satan at the Wailing Wall . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_xnSKHynXE
oh man! Glad i subscribed. be well!